The deification of science

[Gilbert_Keith]

orogeny

The discussion of the origin of species cannot be done without understanding the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Is that a relatively accurate desciption of your belief?

The discussion is not the same as the process. Certainly you can discuss them separately. But the processes did not occur separately, isolated from each other and without relevance to each other.

To repeat, very clearly, there would be no photosynthesis necessary for evolving life if the sun and the earth had not evolved in the way they did. But of course these evolutions can be discussed separately, can be departmentalized for the sake of discovering laws relevant to the different evolutionary processes which were going on simultaneously.

Suns and planets are born, they flourish, and they die.

Species originate, they evolve, and they become extinct.

Do you notice a pattern here? Everything happens like everything else.

 

[LSK]

Someone has accused me of deifying science (in another thread which this was deleted
because that discussion of off topic… I will not contest that accusation, but I will ask one thing concerning this issue:

Would one regard science being deified if one adheres to the theory of evolution instead of believe that God created some creatures discretely in contrast to them being descended from a universial common ancestor?

Why should one abandon empiricism and embrace so-called divine revelation? He also noticed that I think that science will eventually show that God is unneccessary in the natural world and that science will make God disappear. I will not contest this, as while I was studying biochemistry in my own free time (mainly from Lubert Stryer’s Biochemistry fifth edition) and reading peer-reviewed articles about the in vitro evolution of nucleic acid enzymes (see my signature for an example of a nucleic acid enzyme and my user name ), I realized that life simply is molecules; life is a self-sustaining system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. I also appreciated the ability of Darwinian evolution to generate novel structures (again my signature is an example of this as the molecule is able to act as an RNA polymerase). To me, this I think this shows that God intervening in nature is unneccessary.

Also he criticized me for getting upset when someone insults (he used quotation marks under
“insults”) some scientists. I only get upset because people wrongly accuse them of being
dogmatic (see: creationontheweb.com/content/view/4537)

As far as I am concerned, Professor Joyce does not believe in a personal God (I don’t know about Professor Bartel though) and he most certainly does not believe in anything dogmatically. To the contrary, he advocates skepticism in science as opposed to dogmatism. Would anyone want to challenge this?

Well, what is the deification of science? I am not address this question to any one particular person though? How am I (or scientists in general) guilty of this?

Catholics believe that God is the Author of all Truth. If there ever seems to be a conflict between Truth and science then either the science is wrong/faulty OR our understanding of Truth is incomplete.

Because Faith should never be divorced from reason, nor should reason be diefied and used without faith, Catholics can grow in understanding of the incredible world that God created.

I guess I just don’t see what the problem is and why anyone should think you have to ‘choose’ one or the other - God or Science.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

LSK

I guess I just don’t see what the problem is and why anyone should think you have to ‘choose’ one or the other - God or Science.

I agree. The problem, however, stems from both sides. The early churchmen opposed Galileo and Darwin. The later scientists opposed the Big Bang as uncomfortably close to Genesis.

This either/or thinking is typically human. Sooner or later everything shakes out. Sooner or later the churchmen become reconciled to Galileo and Darwin, and the (atheistic) scientists become reconciled to the Big Bang.

The world is always playing catch-up with the truth.

 

[ribozyme]

I guess I just don’t see what the problem is and why anyone should think you have to ‘choose’ one or the other - God or Science.

I think that there is a dichotomy between God and science…

Or as some have stated it more aptly reason and superstition…

I do think the Gerald Joyce quote is extremely important because skepticism is an important heuristic in science. I would agree that inferences drawn from existing data is also a healthy scientific practice. This, of course, requires one to use their imagination because the experimental data might not be available. It is not healthy to maintain such speculation as speculation, and such conjecture should be tested. In the origin of life field, it would seem imperative for one to use their imagination when visualizing their preferred hypothesis, because studies about the origins of life in general are plagued with a lack of experimental data.

I have not emphasized the importance of this quote vividly as I believe it elucidates a fundamental difference in the conflict between science and religion. Such an interpretation obviously has implications that extend beyond an origin of life hypothesis. Nevertheless, I would want to initiate further discussion by discussing the RNA World hypothesis. First, I will reiterate: Gerald Joyce is an RNA World proponent and I am not. He believes that the evidence supports that hypothesis and I do not. Despite Gerald Joyce’s views on the origin of life, he advocates one to use skepticism in order for one to have an informed opinion about the origin of life. Next, let us assume hypothetically (I am not implying anything about Dr. Joyce’s metaphysical beliefs, and personally, I presume he does not believe in anything supernatural) that Gerald Joyce is a Roman Catholic catechist. If one of his students doubt that the communion wafer transforms in to the “Body of Christ” would he reply to his inquisitive student, “Skepticism regarding transubstantiation is very healthy?” A catechist would deem such a notion heresy, not healthy skepticism.

Unlike religious doctrines, for example transubstantiation as discussed above, scientific hypotheses and theories could be subjected to skepticism. The primary reason for this is that scientific knowledge is not infallible because of its own authority, but because they are observations consistent with reality. This is in stark contrast to the dogma that the Pope is infallible on the issues of faith and morals. Nothing in science should be believed dogmatically, as new evidence might be discovered to falsify existing hypotheses and theories. Skepticism is healthy in scientific inquiry, however, there is a restriction regarding skepticism in this field of epistemology: doubt must be supplemented by evidence. One cannot simply adopt a skeptical attitude to behave like an iconoclast, but such skepticism has to assist the scientific process. Perhaps, this was the reason why Dr. Joyce cautioned that one should “maintain a healthy dose of skepticism.” Skepticism without basis with knowledge and evidence is dogmatism. For example, skepticism regarding the existence of the Christian God (or any God which is postulated to be benevolent) is on a firm foundation because of the problem of evil.

From here: iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163978

Joyce has said to me that I did not misrepresent his views on that thread, and he also allowed to use the RNA world skepticism quote (which can be seen in that thread too) and that’s the only thing I asked him permission to quote because it is an illuminating quote.

So Joyce is the antithesis of one of promotes dogmatism, and instead prefers reason as he is a practicing scientist. I look up to him as a paragon of a scientist (and some other scientists too like Robert Shapiro and Leslie Orgel). He is a skeptic, and indeed, I believe that post points out the fundamental differences between science and religion. Care to respond?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

So Joyce is the antithesis of one of promotes dogmatism, and instead prefers reason as he is a practicing scientist. I look up to him as a paragon of a scientist (and some other scientists too like Robert Shapiro and Leslie Orgel). He is a skeptic, and indeed, I believe that post points out the fundamental differences between science and religion. Care to respond?

Science is indeed skeptical, as it should be. With theory, however, science should doubt even its own best guess. This was not the case with Einstein, who failed to see the implications of relativity … name the Big Bang. He wanted to hold to the 19th century notion among astronomers that the universe was static, infinite, and eternal. It remained for a man of faith **and **reason, George LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, to break through Einstein’s traditionalsim and see that the universe must have had a start at some moment in time. Einstein later came to acknowledge LeMaitre’s contribution and praised him for it.

There is not much skepticism today about whether the Big Bang happened. The universe **did **begin, as it says in Genesis. So much for the traditionalist science of the 19th century, buried and forgotten because of an open-minded Jesuit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny

The discussion of the origin of species cannot be done without understanding the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Is that a relatively accurate desciption of your belief?

The discussion is not the same as the process. Certainly you can discuss them separately. But the processes did not occur separately, isolated from each other and without relevance to each other.

OK, by your logic, chemistry is really just applied physics. Since life is really just a chemical (in other words, physical) process, why don’t we just cut to the chase and disregard all discussions except for physics?

By the way, I of course agree that evolution of life is dependent upon it’s origin. If it hadn’t started, there would be no life to evolve. However, *how *life originated is irrelevant to evolution.

To repeat, very clearly, there would be no photosynthesis necessary for evolving life if the sun and the earth had not evolved in the way they did. But of course these evolutions can be discussed separately, can be departmentalized for the sake of discovering laws relevant to the different evolutionary processes which were going on simultaneously.

Suns and planets are born, they flourish, and they die.

Species originate, they evolve, and they become extinct.

Do you notice a pattern here? Everything happens like everything else.

Yes, they can be discussed separately. One doesn’t need to know *how *life began in order to study and discover how it evolved. That is the whole point. How the universe, the earth and life was created is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The big bang is not part of evolutionary theory.

And by the way, photosynthesis was not necessary for the evolution of life. There are organisms that live in the absence of oxygen. Life could have easily evolved in a complete absence of gaseous oxygen.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nullasalus]

So Joyce is the antithesis of one of promotes dogmatism, and instead prefers reason as he is a practicing scientist. I look up to him as a paragon of a scientist (and some other scientists too like Robert Shapiro and Leslie Orgel). He is a skeptic, and indeed, I believe that post points out the fundamental differences between science and religion. Care to respond?

Of course, the idea that reason (especially narrowly defined reason, such as scientific reason) is a very good thing is a dogma itself. The moment you rely on an axiom, some dogmatism is creeping into your life - but, that’s the nature of the human experience.

One problem I have with that post is that it implies Catholicism (and religion in general) is a faith where questioning, discussion, and debate is discouraged. This is very far from the truth to say the least.

Yes, there are certain essential beliefs required for one to reasonably call themselves Catholic - resurrection of Christ, etc. But even within Catholicism, there is an incredible amount of discussion, consideration, and yes - even questioning. Limbo, genesis, invincible ignorance, validity of ordination, etc - the Church has dogma, but it’s very far from the kind of close-mindedness many imply. Usually that’s a result of misunderstanding, purposeful and not.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

orogeny

And by the way, photosynthesis was not necessary for the evolution of life. There are organisms that live in the absence of oxygen. Life could have easily evolved in a complete absence of gaseous oxygen.

Would these organisms have evolved into you and I, which is the end product of evolution as we know it? Doubtful.

Let’s keep the discussion on track.

Photosynthesis **is **necessary to evolution as we know it!

OK, by your logic, chemistry is really just applied physics. Since life is really just a chemical (in other words, physical) process, why don’t we just cut to the chase and disregard all discussions except for physics?

For that matter, chemistry, physics, and biology are just applied math. But everything works together as a process. You cannot speak of biological evolution without bringing in chemistry and physics.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? Don’t you see all the scientists in the different disciplines working closer and closer together as our knowledge of everything strongly suggests that everything is connected?

Even in Genesis the whole revelation concerns itself with how to bring everything together: the heavens, the earth, the oceans, even the great mystery of that seminal moment … the CREATION itself

Let there be light.

BANG!.

 

[ribozyme]

Of course, the idea that reason (especially narrowly defined reason, such as scientific reason) is a very good thing is a dogma itself. The moment you rely on an axiom, some dogmatism is creeping into your life - but, that’s the nature of the human experience.

One problem I have with that post is that it implies Catholicism (and religion in general) is a faith where questioning, discussion, and debate is discouraged. This is very far from the truth to say the least.

Yes, there are certain essential beliefs required for one to reasonably call themselves Catholic - resurrection of Christ, etc. But even within Catholicism, there is an incredible amount of discussion, consideration, and yes - even questioning. Limbo, genesis, invincible ignorance, validity of ordination, etc - the Church has dogma, but it’s very far from the kind of close-mindedness many imply. Usually that’s a result of misunderstanding, purposeful and not.

I thank you for your comments. I would like to ask how does Catholicism promotes rational inquiry, rather than discourage it. I would prefer some citations from the Bible or the Catechism though.

Should I discourage myself from asking questions (especially those regarding humanity’s place in the universe) and just readily accept what the Church teaches? I believe if I do that, I will be insulting Gerald Joyce, Robert Shapiro, Leslie Orgel, and the scientists who have influenced me.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

I believe if I do that, I will be insulting Gerald Joyce, Robert Shapiro, Leslie Orgel, and the scientists who have influenced me.

Why do you believe that? Did they create your immortal soul?

 

[Nullasalus]

I thank you for your comments. I would like to ask how does Catholicism promotes rational inquiry, rather than discourage it. I would prefer some citations from the Bible or the Catechism though.

I was just reading up on Sir John Eccles - nobel prize winner, theist, and ‘sometimes Catholic’ according to the wiki entry. You may find him interesting, if only that someone like him can apparently exist.

I’m not certain what you mean by the promotion of rational inquiry, though. Can you be more specific - namely, what subjects you would like to see/know if the Church is rationally inquiring into?

Should I discourage myself from asking questions (especially those regarding humanity’s place in the universe) and just readily accept what the Church teaches? I believe if I do that, I will be insulting Gerald Joyce, Robert Shapiro, Leslie Orgel, and the scientists who have influenced me.

Of course not. Then again, few do - even few Catholics, certainly few theists. CS Lewis was at odds with the direction of the Anglican Church. Some of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teachings were criticized by the Church itself in later years (marian doctrine, for example.) It’s not a question of discouraging the asking of questions - though yes, there are individuals who will discourage such, in any institution - religious or not.

 

[Orogeny]

Would these organisms have evolved into you and I, which is the end product of evolution as we know it? Doubtful.

I don’t know of any animal that uses photosynthesis. Since we (our physical bodies) evolved from animals, I would say that yes, they could have evolved into us. In fact, they did.

Photosynthesis **is **necessary to evolution as we know it!

Nope. Photosynthesis is necessary for some of the life that we know, but once again, there are life forms that don’t use photosynthesis. And they evolved.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? Don’t you see all the scientists in the different disciplines working closer and closer together as our knowledge of everything strongly suggests that everything is connected?

I have absolutely no problem understanding what you are saying. I disagree with your premise that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the big bang or the origin of life. Yes, there are connections in that without both the big bang and the origin of life, evolution doesn’t happen. However, how the origin began and how life began has nothing to do with how life evolves. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Even in Genesis the whole revelation concerns itself with how to bring everything together: the heavens, the earth, the oceans, even the great mystery of that seminal moment … the CREATION itself

Let there be light.

BANG!.

Sorry, Genesis is the story of who and why, not how.

From “In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall”
excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

Peace

Tim

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

orogeny

I don’t know of any animal that uses photosynthesis. Since we (our physical bodies) evolved from animals, I would say that yes, they could have evolved into us. In fact, they did.

Er … ahem … so what you are saying is that if there were no green in the world, we would have evolved into ourselves anyway?

 

[clarkal]

OT:

"Atheists do not like the hard work it takes to be a true believer. But there is no free lunch. Even the Last Supper was paid for with blood, sweat, and tears." Carl Sundell

---

I would just like to say that the above quote has got to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

That is all.

Please continue.

clarkal

 

[Nullasalus]

]I would just like to say that the above quote has got to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

I used to think it was incorrect, but more and more I’ve found the quote to be apt and accurate. Usually because the responses to it are ‘That’s dumb! Grr!’

But that was off-topic. Looking forward to more of GK and Oro’s discussion.

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny

I don’t know of any animal that uses photosynthesis. Since we (our physical bodies) evolved from animals, I would say that yes, they could have evolved into us. In fact, they did.

Er … ahem … so what you are saying is that if there were no green in the world, we would have evolved into ourselves anyway?

It’s possible. We will never know, will we? Was photosynthesis necessary for evolution? Certainly not for some creatues.

Peace

Tim

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*It’s possible. We will never know, will we? Was photosynthesis necessary for evolution? Certainly not for some creatues.

Peace
*
Pax tecum.

 

[clarkal]

I used to think it was incorrect, but more and more I’ve found the quote to be apt and accurate. Usually because the responses to it are ‘That’s dumb! Grr!’

But that was off-topic. Looking forward to more of GK and Oro’s discussion.

No growling here. I’m simply dumbfounded. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the quote. Is it implying that atheists are too lily-livered or weak to follow Christianity? If so, that’s just stupid and ignorant.

But do go on and explain how you’ve found this statement more and more “apt and accurate” because atheists respond in anger to it. I don’t see the connection.

PM if you want.

clarkal

 

[ribozyme]

I was just reading up on Sir John Eccles - nobel prize winner, theist, and ‘sometimes Catholic’ according to the wiki entry. You may find him interesting, if only that someone like him can apparently exist.

I’m not certain what you mean by the promotion of rational inquiry, though. Can you be more specific - namely, what subjects you would like to see/know if the Church is rationally inquiring into?

Of course not. Then again, few do - even few Catholics, certainly few theists. CS Lewis was at odds with the direction of the Anglican Church. Some of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teachings were criticized by the Church itself in later years (marian doctrine, for example.) It’s not a question of discouraging the asking of questions - though yes, there are individuals who will discourage such, in any institution - religious or not.

Well, regarding Eccles, he is quite rare according to Dawkins:
Richard Dawkins:

The efforts of apologists to find genuine distinguished modern scientists who are religious have an air of despiration, generating the unmistakenly hollow sound of bottoms of barrels being scraped. The only website I could find that claimed to list “Nobel Prize-winning Scientific Christians” came up with six, out of a total of several hundred scientific Nobelists. Of these six, it turned out four were not Nobel Prize-winners at all; and at least one, to my certain knowledge, is a non-believer who attends church for purely social reasons.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Pg. 100

Regarding the nature of consciousness (which Eccles denied a materialistic explanation), I will say this. Could the exact nature of consciousness be explained scientifically? How could atoms, which follow the laws of nature, be able to acknowledge its own existence and acquire the ability to ask about the *physical *mechanism that allows itself to ask this question? What causes atoms to have an inquistive nature so it desires understand this answer to this question? If we are bounded by cause and effect relationships, we, by necessity, have to ask this question, and cannot control the inclination to ask this question.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, regarding Eccles, he is quite rare according to Dawkins:

I find it amusing that Dawkins’ efforts at research was (apparently, by that quote) limited to ‘finding a website that talked about Nobel prize winning Christians’. You can find craziness of any faction on the web if you so choose. For me, I wasn’t even trying to read up on nobel prize winning christians - I just was studying quantum consciousness, found Eccles’ name, and thought he was pretty interesting. Why even limit the list to Nobel prize winners? But this particular topic is a very petty one - people fight over what ‘side’ Einstein should be on, just as they fight over what side Hitler should be on, in the opposite direction.

Again, it goes back to why I don’t consider Dawkins worth the effort to engage - he’s desperately trying to prove a point that he himself will not be swayed from, regardless of the evidence he encounters. It’s akin to trying to debate a PR representative; if the person you’re talking with will spin everything in the direction they please, what’s the point?

Regarding the nature of consciousness (which Eccles denied a materialistic explanation), I will say this. Could the exact nature of consciousness be explained scientifically? How could atoms, which follow the laws of nature, be able to acknowledge its own existence and acquire the ability to ask about the *physical *mechanism that allows itself to ask this question? What causes atoms to have an inquistive nature so it desires understand this answer to this question? If we are bounded by cause and effect relationships, we, by necessity, have to ask this question, and cannot control the inclination to ask this question.

Good question. This is where a lot of people would say ‘Proof that there’s an immaterial soul!’, but I’m not going to go that far. I do think that the nature of life itself - not to mention the conscious experience, certainly of humans - is an interesting mystery. I’ve been reading up on it a lot lately, everything from the Dennett attitude of ‘Consciousness is essentially meaningless and doesn’t effectively exist’ to old-school dualists in the line of Swedenborg and his modern variations. Hence my reading into quantum consciousness. I don’t believe in any of the explanations of consciousness I’ve thus far read. It’s hard to be definitely persuasive on the topic.

I’ll advance this much, though. Nowadays, the theories about the universe are getting, to me, crazier and crazier. Many-worlds interpretations in quantum physics. The nature of decoherence and the twin-slit experiment itself is certainly weird. Postulates of eternal universes. It’s hard to determine what’s reasonable anymore. Maybe there’s a reason for that!